stated that be bad omitted to call Mr. Landale's name when he left the Coart to look for Mr. Mackinnon When he: retarned to the Court he saw that Mr. Landale was present.
Mr. Jones ssid that Mr. Landale called upon the Consal-General the previous evening and prodaced his summons and the purport of the conversation he had with Mr. Frazar was that the Coosal-General agreed that it was not io order and seat down for it to be withdrawn. (To witness) Is that not 80?
Witness—The Consul-General did not ssy that the commons was not in order ly adequate, He told me to refer it to Mr. King and Mr. King decided to let it stand Mr. Jones—Well Mr, Landai pression ie that he was definitely told that the summons was not io order.
Witoess—No, that is not 20.
Mr. Mackiason—I would like to ask in some cases—
His Worship—Will you stand up Mr. Mackinnon Mr. Mackionoo, rising,—I should like to ask why in some years the fee was returned snd not in others. When received the sammous I sent the fee of $2 and requested the issue of the certificate, bat the $2 were retarn In another case the certificate was Witness—Mr. Mackinnon rent note to one of our officials, Mr. Twy-}0 is not eovcerned with the registration. This note was written on paper more or less of a and it was handed to me and I eubmitted it to the Consul-General and I was directed to proceed. The fee was tarned merely as a matter of convenience. baz Does any other gentlemen wish to say anything?
Mr. Landale then weet into the witness box.—He said that he was served with the summon: he retarned from Hongkon; intended to ba registered. sent $2 round and was returned to him Mapicipal Cooncil.
Mr. Jones—Is that your address an British subject 7—No.
Did you see the Consul-General I saw him yesterday ovening and pointed out that I considered the complaint made in that summooi in offence under the Order that in orde also ought not to have excused myself, I said "I have now come to excuse myself", I gave bim my explanation and be said that it was quite satisfactory. He also said that I was quite correct, He did not consider thatthe summons was in order and ssid that it should be withdrawo and re-issued, His Worship—Did the Consnl-General eay it would be withdrawn?
Witness—No, he eaid it ought to be withdrawo.
Mr. Ellis said that he wished to address the Court. He hoped that his Worship would not thiok that he wished disrespect to the Court or to the provision in the Order in Council, but be thought that point which should receive his Worebip's consideration was that raised by Mr. Landale in hie evidence. He submitted that until the words " to excuse himeelf to the fact of the Consular officer"
embodied in the summons there was no offence committed. Unless it also appeared in the summons that he had not excessed himself to the satisfaction of the Consalar officer no offence bad been committed.
His Worebip—If your objection were '8 good one it would amount to this that the Consular officer must go to every British subject who does not register himeelf and say " You mast come and Mr. Ellis—Not necessarily. I can give an jostance from the Merchant Shipping Act of 1904 where there provision that if the Board of Trad is not satisfied with regard to the genuine ownership by a British subject of a vessel which ie flying British ting, the Board of Trade calls on the to give them that Fatisfaction and the time it stated io which that is factory evidence is to be produced, If that evidence is not forthcoming then, the offence is committed and the ship becomes forfeited. I submit that some such notice of that kind should be given here in his matter to every British ant ject to give some reason for not registering himeelf. It seems to me that there has not been sufficient care taken by the Consular officer to satisfy himself as to the reasonable failure of the defen-dante with regard to registration. I say that that is part and parcel of the spirit
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.